Pierce, R. D. (1984). University of Tulsa, OK.
Reviewed: April 2017
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Math.
Reviewed: June 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Algebra I.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lankton First-Year Algebra Test |
Saxon Algebra I vs. Holt Algebra I |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
22.88 |
22.34 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in a high school in the southern midwest United States.
The school district was described as primarily White and middle or upper-middle class. Ninth graders enrolled in beginning algebra were on the average mathematics track and constituted the majority of ninth graders at the study school.
Students in the intervention group received algebra instruction using Saxon Algebra I. Instruction in both conditions occurred over the course of an entire academic year during daily 55-minute math instructional blocks. Teachers organized their classroom instruction in “equivalent” ways for both the intervention and comparison sections, with respect to structure: utilizing 10–15 minutes for homework review, 10 minutes for review of the text, 15 minutes to review new material, and 15–20 minutes of work on problems due during the next class period. Class pacing was similar between the two groups; however, instructional approaches and problem set content were different based on the differential approaches of the intervention and comparison curricula. For example, students in the intervention group received ongoing review in accordance with Saxon’s Incremental Development Model.
Students in the comparison group received instruction using Holt Algebra I, the school’s business-as-usual algebra curriculum. This curriculum followed standard mathematical pedagogy, including chapter reviews and practice problems, with problem sets and quarterly review tests.
The two study teachers met with each other weekly and with the researcher monthly during the school year. The meetings were designed as an opportunity to discuss common problems encountered implementing Saxon Algebra I and share ideas about the study. Teachers agreed at the outset of the study to provide “equivalent” instruction to each study condition to maintain the integrity of the study.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube